276 Mo. 504 | Mo. | 1918
This is an original proceeding by mandamus. The facts are few and simple and stand admitted, in as much as the respondent rests his case upon a demurrer to relator’s petition, which stands for the alternative writ.
Relator is the State Game and Fish Commissioner of Missouri. Respondent is the State Auditor. Relator, at the time of his appointment to the office of State Game and Fish Commissioner, resided at the city of St. James in the county of Phelps, and thence forward has continued to reside there. He established no residence in Jefferson City, but did establish an office there, in which is maintained a clerk and an office force. Once or twice per month it became necessary for relator to come from his home to his office to go over the expense accounts of the office, and the expense accounts of his divers deputies in the State, to the end that he might certify the same to the State Auditor for payment. While doing this work, he charged his hotel bills while at Jefferson City in his accounts as expenses
II. By Section 6558 such officer “may provide and maintain a suitable office, and may maintain a clerk when necessary.” The same section also further provides :
The duties of such officer under Article 2 of Chapter 49, Revised Statutes 1909, are numerous and varied, and chief among them is, that he is to see that the state game laws are enforced, [Sec. 6562, R. S. 1909.] To this end he is empowered to serve warrants and make arrests. [Sec. 6565, R. S. 1909.] In fact, under this law (Art. 2, chap. 49, supra) his duties are so numerous and various as to require his presence at times in the different portions of the State. Without aid he could not meet all the obligations of the law, and the Legislature, so knowing, has provided for many deputies. [Sec. 6566, R. S. 1909.] Those deputies are allowed a ■per diem and expenses, and their accounts must be examined and approved by the Commissioner. [Sec. 6566, supra.]
The expenses involved in this action were expenses incident to the examination and approval of these expense accounts, as well as other expense accounts of the office mantained by the relator. If either the law or the Constitution required of relator a residence at the seat of government, and the law (as it does not) required his office to be maintained at the seat of government, there would be excuse for the action of the State Auditor in this case. But as it is there is absolutely no excuse for the refusal to audit and allow these expenses, which are amply provided for both by the law creating the office and prescribing the duties, and the Appropriations Act covering the expense of the office.